Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

mpicpp points out a report in the Chicago Tribune saying that thousands of the city's drivers have been wrongfully ticketed for red light violations because of "faulty equipment, human tinkering, or both." The Tribune's investigation uncovered the bogus tickets by analyzing the data from over 4 million tickets issued in the past seven years.
Cameras that for years generated just a few tickets daily suddenly caught dozens of drivers a day. One camera near the United Center rocketed from generating one ticket per day to 56 per day for a two-week period last summer before mysteriously dropping back to normal. Tickets for so-called rolling right turns on red shot up during some of the most dramatic spikes, suggesting an unannounced change in enforcement. One North Side camera generated only a dozen tickets for rolling rights out of 100 total tickets in the entire second half of 2011. Then, over a 12-day spike, it spewed 563 tickets — 560 of them for rolling rights. Many of the spikes were marked by periods immediately before or after when no tickets were issued — downtimes suggesting human intervention that should have been documented. City officials said they cannot explain the absence of such records.

By appealing and not agreeing to "settle" with the prosecution — in fact, I did not even want to "talk to them" other than during a hearing and in judge's presence. This made it necessary for the actual officer, who (supposedly) reviewed the ticket before it was issued, to appear in court — which he didn't do. Maybe, I was just "lucky" at that and, maybe, Chicago would've allowed the prosecution to avoid presenting the officer for testimony, but...

The automatic cameras allow for issuing a massive number of tickets — because human police don't need to do much work. If more people appealed — thus necessitating the human policemen's presence in court for each such ticket, maybe, they wouldn't be such a valuable proposition for the local authorities.

Under criminal law you have the right to face your accuser. Is the court supposed to bring in the red light camera for testimony? Sure you can request a hearing on the ticket but I meant no cops have to show up. You guys are thick.

Nobody is fooled by the name "red light camera" . The entire point of these things have always been generation of revenue by ticketing people for rolling right turns. They serve no credible public safety interest of any kind.

A 10 second warning counter has been shown to be more effective. But those cost money and don't generate money.

Still, red light cameras do serve a safety purpose. While increasing the number of accidents, they do decrease the fatality of accidents. Translating 40mph tbone collisions into 20mph rear end collisions.

Still, red light cameras do serve a safety purpose. While increasing the number of accidents, they do decrease the fatality of accidents. Translating 40mph tbone collisions into 20mph rear end collisions.

You are incorrect. The camera's were conceived as an FHWA program for specific intersections to reduce fatalities.

Now that we are finally bringing most of the nations roads to standards past 1970 the number of fatalities on our nations roads have been dropping at a considerable rate for quite a while. The result is that now intersection related fatalities now outpace roadway design related fatalities. After a lot of research the FWHA determined that many many of these fatalities are occurring in the same in

You are incorrect. The camera's were conceived as an FHWA program for specific intersections to reduce fatalities.

Who cares why it originally started? What's this got to do with reality?

Had these cameras remained as ONLY a safety device they would have continued to work. We've still got the problem that red light fatalities are increasing nearly exponentially and we're going to have to deal with it.

Exponential? Quacks like bullshit to me.

All material I've been able to find from those on both sides of red light camera argument universally show *decline* in intersection deaths whether there are red light cameras present or not. Even IIHS paper which is firmly pro RLC posts declines in areas where no red light cameras are present.

You are incorrect. The camera's were conceived as an FHWA program for specific intersections to reduce fatalities.

Um, I really hate to have to tell you this, but what they were "conceived" for is very different from what they are actually used for.

The camera's actually did reduce fatalities at some of those high fatality intersections.

But by now we also have LOTS of statistics saying that in many cities, they actually increased not just the number but also the average severity of accidents. I am aware this is counterintuitive, nevertheless it is true.

Not to mention that at camera-enforcement intersections, they usually shorten up the yellow light (sometimes below the federal minimums) -- which maximizes tickets while reducing the amount of time drivers have to react. When you know you're about to get in trouble for not making the right decision fast enough, do you really make better decisions? I doubt it. Evidence is that under such circumstances, more poor decisions are made, hence more (and more-severe) accidents.

As always with these cameras. It's NOT about the law, what's legal, or enforcing the law.

It's about making a profit. A revenue stream. I'd say "first and foremost", but that implies there's another reason. And there just isn't. It's about extracting ever more money from the citizens through any means necessary. Even though Chicago's signing away 90% OF THE TICKET REVENUES TO THE CAMERA COMPANY!

As much as I don't like these cameras, when you get a ticket in Chicago, and most of the suburbs I know of around here, you're provided w/ the means to actually watch your car commit the violation. I got a ticket for a rolling right turn on red last summer. You key your license and the citation number into a city website (google it, you'll find it) and you can watch an mpeg4 stream of your car passing through the intersection or turning on red or whatever - with a little curl magic you can download it as a keepsake.

Armed with the video, you should be able to appeal the ticket if you truly didn't commit the offense or if the camera went bonkers and ticketed everyone going through the intersection.

If it's a borderline case, most people don't bother with the hassle of appealing and just pay the fine...miss a day of work and sit in a traffic court for hours (and possibly pay court costs) or pay $100.

My observation around the Chicago area is that people are mostly just butthurt because they're getting ticketed for infractions that were lightly enforced before due to labor / manhour constraints of the police forces.

Not driving like a maniac and hurting people and damaging property is one thing. But because traffic tickets are a source of revenue, the city has no incentive to make traffic laws sane or simple, especially in large urban areas. In Chicago, the latest craze is speeding cameras near schools and parks because "think of the children" and any park or school is fair game. Likewise, many intersections are no right turn on red between 730am and 730pm. So if you see it's safe to turn and don't see the sign, tough

If you allow municipalities to a) collect the fines and b) game the system be prepared for problems.

In BC it is mostly the opposite. Ticketing and cost of enforcement IS covered by the municipalities (who fund the police) but the fines go to the provincial government. So increased enforcement (which may be a good thing) will cost the municipality more. And if they are willing to fund that then good for them. But they won't increase their revenues. And in fact may increase their policing costs if the ticketi

The primary witness in all this is software.As such the software needs to be available for cross examination the same asany other software. Perhaps not open source but clearly open and testableinterfaces.

Further any revision and change must be subject to audit. The obvious issueis bogus citations because code did not operate as per specifications in thelaw. All citations issued while the bogus code was "live" would then needto be reviewed.

It's worse in my town. they shortened the green light on busy cross streets along the main drag with the red light cameras. You are lucky to get two cars through now and if you are waiting for apposing traffic before turning left, you will be in the intersection when your light turns red. They did this right after the cameras went up.

Luckily, soon after the cameras went up, the state and a court said they couldn't be used pending a couple court cases over them. One judge already called it "criminal" in one of the cases and another called it racketeering so I think the state supreme court might not allow them either. The state (Ohio) is not banking on the courts, they are trying to pass legislation that would bar their use unless a cop was at the intersection witnessing the infraction.

One of the very first yellow light studies was conducted over Chillicothe Ohio's cams. I don't know if this is the original or not (I originally remember reading a PDF about it and from another site) but this explains a lot of the problem with short yellows.

Montana outlawed 'em entirely, because of how they just naturally lend themselves to this sort of corruption and setting the public up to fail (ie. short yellows practically forcing 'em to get ticketed). Bozeman was all set to have an exemption but then Redflex whined about how they couldn't make any money under the new rules, and the state legislature decided enough of that shit and nuked the exemption. So... no camera enforcement.:D

Lol, In the 90s, I made a road trip to California. When I got home, later, I recieved a "camera" ticket complete with a picture of my tag and a fine.I took a picture of the correct amount of money and sent it back....Probably got a warrant for my bad self in California now. How f**kin cool is that?

Obviously you don't live in Chicago and have never driven on it's roads. But odd driving practices aside as a Chicago resident I have to say that I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that the city was quietly adjusting the thresholds on intersections occasionally to make a quick buck. I mean it is Chicago we are talking about, the only city where the officials are more corrupt is probably Detroit and the corruption never stops at the top.

A NEW CAR! Not only that, but we'll fly you and a guest non-stop to beautiful Juarez, Mexico for Coedine Margarita's poolside at Juans Motor Hotel and Pizzaria, then on for a tour of the factory that makes Rice-a-Roni; The San Francisco treat! And; you can do it all with a 5 piece set of luggage from Samsonite! Considerations paid for by sponsors, family and employees of Joes Car Wash excluded,taxes apply in N.Y., R.I. and Maine, taxes due upon receipt,local an

Most states allow you to turn on red when it is clear, but some don't. A few don't even require you to stop when making a right turn, if the way is clear. Conversely, municipalities in states that allow a turn on red can disallow it by posting notice at the intersection. And finally, a scant few states don't allow turns on red at all and are happy to ticket drivers for doing so.

Typically, people do 99% of their driving locally (or at least in their home st

A few [states] don't even require you to stop when making a right turn, if the way is clear.

What states are those? I travel around the U.S. *a lot*, and I've never seen this... I'm guessing it's going to be something like Wyoming, North Dakota, etc. (I'm asking sincerely - I think at one time some of those states had no real "upper speed limit" - the law was written to the effect "can't travel faster than the conditions allow" or something like that..)

You need to discriminate between positive and negative error rates in situations like this.

If it failed to ticket 0.025% of red-light runners, we would consider it an amazing success.

If, however, it tickets even one law-abiding driver, then it very much needs an angry mob ripping these damned things down from the poles, throwing them on the front lawn of City Hall, and demanding an end to the outsourcing of "justice" to for-profit companies.

I doesn't matter if it is a.025% false ticket rate or a 95% false ticket rate. The article is pointing out that there are short-lived undocumented changes in camera behavior indicating either a faulty system as a whole or a direct manipulation of the equipment. Both of these are worthy of investigation, no where in the article (it is possible that I missed it) does it suggest that the system itself is failing and should be thrown away. Merely that it looks to either have a fault or is being abused by autho

Everything in our justice system is supposed to be geared to allowing guilty people walk if there is any real doubt in order to escape convicting innocent people. sometimes it doesn't seem like it is still that way and sometimes is seems like the more guilty a person is, the less punishment they get while fringe cases are made examples of, but we need to strive to ensure innocent people are not punished if at all possible.

No, society has to accept errors happen and strive to avoid them while not forgoing the process altogether. That is why when we find an error, instead of saying "but he was convicted anyways, let him rot", we release them and allow them to sue for reparations.

You are 100% right though. In that errors cannot be avoided. But they shouldn't be accepted either.

even if sentenced.025% of innocent people to death it would be doing far better than current efforts.

Assuming 300M people in the US are innocent people, or at least innocent of a capital crime, sentencing 0.025% of innocent people to death would execute 75000 people. That's about 1000x the current rate of executions, so I think it would be worse than current efforts.:)

Unless you meant that 0.025% of people sentenced to death being innocent would be better then current efforts. That one's probably true.

The order of society is far more important than a single insignificant persons life.

You might want to re-think that stance - Not because I particularly value human life, but because it negates your own point.

A rolling-right-on-red doesn't threaten to undermine the order of society. Punishing people who haven't committed any crime, however, does. When people stop believing in at least the theory that our system of crime-and-punishment more-or-less works, the motivation to at least give lip-service to pointless laws completely vanishes.

Wrong. Most of the justice system is designed to scare people away from breaking the law by showing off the might of the government (aka make an example of them). Yes, putting people in jail is an economic strain in many ways, but society is designed around needing X number of "examples". It does not particularly matter if "them" are innocent or guilty.

Yes it does. Any toleration of law breaking undermines the order of society.

Order of society flows from legitimacy rather than enforcement of law. While related the capability to enforce law is directly dependent on ability to obtain legitimacy.

Loss of legitimacy undermines the order of society. Unenforceable law erodes legitimacy.

Tolerance of law breaking is an important safety valve.

See the feedback loop?

If you need convincing you need only look into history of prohibition and war on drugs to see what happens when legitimacy is eroded.

Realities of environment in which people live matters. In extreme circumstance if enough people are desperate enough even normally universally agreeable rules against stealing can temporarily fall into the realm of unenforceable where the peoples only perceived choice is steal or starve/die. This is why governance is difficult and why zero tolerance is reserved for North Koreans, decapitated dictators and hypothetical alien overlords.

Yes it does. Any toleration of law breaking undermines the order of society.

Order of society flows from legitimacy rather than enforcement of law. While related the capability to enforce law is directly dependent on ability to obtain legitimacy.

Loss of legitimacy undermines the order of society. Unenforceable law erodes legitimacy.

Tolerance of law breaking is an important safety valve.

See the feedback loop?

If you need convincing you need only look into history of prohibition and war on drugs to see what happens when legitimacy is eroded.

Realities of environment in which people live matters. In extreme circumstance if enough people are desperate enough even normally universally agreeable rules against stealing can temporarily fall into the realm of unenforceable where the peoples only perceived choice is steal or starve/die. This is why governance is difficult and why zero tolerance is reserved for North Koreans, decapitated dictators and hypothetical alien overlords.

An example was provided where someone challenged two of her tickets. The judge reviewed the video and determined that the person had indeed come to a stop in both scenarios.The judge ruled in favor of the person, and dismissed the ticket.

Additionally, numerous tickets were thrown out at a significantly higher rate during traffic ticket spikes.

Most people are conditioned to not challenge automated tickets. The articled said 95% automatically paid. The remain

In Seattle I challenged a parking violation with photographic evidence. The magistrate accept the evidence into the record. After some back and forth over the interpretation of the evidence, she proffered a deal.Magistrate: "I'll reduce the fine. $2.00."Me: "The evidence clearly shows I was not in violation."Magistrate: "You are more than welcome to take the matter up with a judge."Me: "So this is really about getting a conviction, not about justice."Magistrate: "$2.00. Take it, or leave it."Me: *fuming

Should a police officer be stationed on every corner to write tickets the old-fashioned way?

No. Perhaps we should mostly focus on bigger things, and if they happen to see someone breaking the law, then they can handle it? We shouldn't have officers dedicated to looking out for trivialities, or at least not many.

This is a colossal waste of resources

Good. You seem to think it is a good thing to streamline law enforcement, but in 'the land of the free,' it absolutely is not. That just gives them too much power to abuse, and far more efficiently. That's why mass surveillance is bad.

On a semi-related note, should it be illegal for security cameras to be used by police, and instead require an officer to physically witness an alleged crime in person?

No. Perhaps we should mostly focus on bigger things, and if they happen to see someone breaking the law, then they can handle it? We shouldn't have officers dedicated to looking out for trivialities, or at least not many.

No. Every person should be prosecuted for every single trivial offense until such time that we realize that many of those trivial offenses should not be offenses at all. By just prosecuting a "random" sample is to burden a select few with a punishment that most get away with. That isn't a fair or just system.

Well, police aren't omnipresent, so there's going to be some "random" factor to it. The same is true of other larger cases (e.g. murder, rape, etc.). There's just no getting around it. If we want to get rid of some laws, then we should do that without pointlessly prosecuting people for laws that we believe are unjust to begin with.

Innocent people getting executed is perfectly acceptable to me as long as the error rates are low.

Then you are a pathetic cowardly inhumane sociopath who I pray never is put on a jury. I don't care if you support the death penalty or not but the notion that it is ever acceptable to execute an innocent person is just reprehensible. Of course for someone who talks so tough you apparently can't be bothered to post under your own name.

Innocent people getting executed is perfectly acceptable to me as long as the error rates are low.

Then you are a pathetic cowardly inhumane sociopath

Nope, he is just normal. About 10% of the people in prison are probably innocent. When old DNA evidence was first examined, about 10% of time time it showed that the person convicted of the crime was not the perpetrator. There is no reason to believe the false conviction rate was different in cases where there was no DNA evidence, or where it wasn't examined. Yet we tolerate that level of false convictions, and the plea-bargins, witness bribing, and lying cops that bring them about. Unless you are pers

Unless you are personally working to change our justice system, you are no better than the person you accuse of being a sociopath.

Nonsense. It's possible to be apathetic without cheering on wrongful executions, you know. You can be better than the person above by not saying that this sort of nonsense is acceptable; it isn't. That applies even if you don't actually do much.

Unless you are personally working to change our justice system, you are no better than the person you accuse of being a sociopath.

Nonsense. It's possible to be apathetic without cheering on wrongful executions, you know. You can be better than the person above by not saying that this sort of nonsense is acceptable; it isn't. That applies even if you don't actually do much.

I always am compelled to bring this up when people start talking about an "acceptable" level of execution of innocent people.

Which is to say that if you are accepting of a certain level of innocents losing their life for crimes they did not commit, it follows without any possible argument that you are also accepting of people who commit these crimes getting away with murder.

I disagree. It's possible to accept the fact that criminals will get away and yet not support executions at all, which is what I do.

That's changing the argument. Anyhow, I wasn't disagreeing with you.

My response was to the AC posting:

Innocent people getting executed is perfectly acceptable to me as long as the error rates are low. The order of society is far more important than a single insignificant persons life.

As for accepting criminals getting away with their acts, I understand that. We cannot engineer a perfect criminal justice system. There are mistakes, there are some times criminal acts along the way. But I won't ever say to a person - well you weren't really guilty, but hey, that's the breaks dude.Society benefits by your improper incarceration.

If, however, it tickets even one law-abiding driver, then it very much needs an angry mob ripping these damned things down from the poles, throwing them on the front lawn of City Hall, and demanding an end to the outsourcing of "justice" to for-profit companies.

Only because the populous is too stupid to understand numbers. Innocent people getting executed is perfectly acceptable to me as long as the error rates are low. The order of society is far more important than a single insignificant persons life.

That's because you're what is technically and by the numbers called an "asshole".

He's also full of shit, and a hypocrite. Beneath contempt would be screaming about justice denied if say his wife or kid was killed, for not doing anything wrong, or put on trail and executed, and it turned out to be an error.

Or perhaps after a cop accidentally shoots him because he was scratching his nuts in public, with his dying breath, would say - "it's okay officer - you probably don't kill too many people "

If Beneath Contempt is still willing to continue to display his idiocy here, perhaps if he could comment on this Justice for profit, related incident. When two judges in Scranton PA recieved money kickbacks for sentencing children to a for profit detention center. Many of these children did nothing that in a normal law system would just get a lecture.

But is corruption and imprisoning people for personal gain okay if the "error rates are low?" 6000 kids out of all th ejuvenile system is pretty low - right? How about if your kid was sent to juvie for a year for say.

Acceptable error rates in criminal/civil matters are 0. We won't ever hit that number, but anything higher is just not acceptable. We must always strive for only punishing the guilty, Anything else means we accept the guilty going free.

Sigh... I took his comment to mean that brakes in good working order would fail not that they would wear out.

If that was a defect rate for brakes in all cars manufactured. A 0.05% is excellent. It means you have a 99.95% chance of buying a car without the brakes failing.

actually no.. Take GM's recent recall about a spring in the key mechanism that was too weak. GM identified it caused 31 crashes and 13 deaths but is recalling 8.2 million vehicles over the problem. So 31 crashes out of 8.2 million vehicles i

Bullshit. That's a HORRIBLE error rate. Remember that whole "innocent until proven guilty" part of the Constitution? If they are going to be used at all these things have to be tuned to have a false positive error rate of close to zero. If that means a higher false negative rate (people who ran the light but didn't get a ticket) then so be it. That's the way it is supposed to work in our justice system. If that means foregoing some traffic penalty revenue then so be it. Better that a hundred people g

Except for the fact that it's not automatic like it would be otherwise. Your punishment can be determined before anyone *ever* goes to see a judge.

People just choose to wave their rights and just pay the fine because they broke the law and they know it.

Bullshit. It's often because it's too costly/takes too much time and people have no confidence in the system. More importantly, why do you, someone who presumably lives in 'the land of the free'--a place where it is considered a good thing to distrust authority, and a place where the constitution is intended to place severe limitations upon the government--have a

These RLC citations, at least in Ohio (some areas of Ohio that I know of), were issued as a civil penalty or some bullshit like that and there is absolutely no court involved at all and no way to challenge outside of an administration hearing with the company who leases the cameras to the city and a board created by the city. In Ohio, there are several court cases challenging the constitutionality of them because of this and it went in front of the state supreme court. We are waiting o

Yeah, if you look, you'll find that phrase is not found in the US Constitution.

No those exact words are not there but I refer you to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eight amendments, particularly the Fifth. Innocent until proven guilty is the shortened version of what they collectively say.

It's merely an inference (by the courts) that it exists as part of US jurisprudence.

It is nothing of the sort. Explain to me how "nor shall any person... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" be anything other than different phrasing of innocent until proven guilty. (That's from the Fifth Amendment BTW)

No, it's not. A clear perusal of the US Constitution shows that phrasing is entirely absent.

And your point is... what? That has already been established. His real point was that it's there, even if it doesn't use that exact phrasing. Even if it's just an inference, that still makes it part of the constitution, because the constitution establishes these rules to begin with.

"Then, over a 12-day spike, it spewed 563 tickets — 560 of them for rolling rights"
That is pretty much the issue. See, before these stupid cameras people came to a very very slow speed, looked and executed a turn all at once. If there is enough visibility at the intersection you would make a right. Police could technically ticket you for it but I have never heard of one in my life of driving / motorcycle riding. In fact I still regularly do this in front of police at areas that have no camera. T

It has been documented that these cameras cause more rear end collisions because of this fact.

That's because of people speeding. The faster you drive, the less time you have to react to the light changing or the driver in front of you stopping. In fact, the time you are given to react can even be negative if you drive too fast.

Therefore, if safety is the goal (big if), red light cameras should also be speed cameras. Without people speeding as they approach traffic lights, there will be far fewer rear end c

That's because of people speeding. The faster you drive, the less time you have to react to the light changing or the driver in front of you stopping. In fact, the time you are given to react can even be negative if you drive too fast.

Failure to maintain proper following distance causes rear end collisions.

Without people speeding as they approach traffic lights, there will be far fewer rear end collisions and far fewer red light infractions.

There is no (proven) scientific correlation between speeding and accidents. There is a correlation between reckless driving and accidents. There are numerous peer reviewed scientific studies that prove raising speed limits (selectively) would reduce accidents.

I think you're narrowly defining "speeding" to mean "exceeding the posted speed limit." Using a more broad definition that includes the reasonable and prudent [wikipedia.org] speed under the given conditions (visibility, weather, road condition, etc.) and following distance (i.e. tailgating or not), you will find a wealth of data that shows that speed does indeed contribute to the rate of collisions.

And of course the amount of damage in a collision is proportional to the square of the velocity [wikipedia.org].

The cameras are very questionable from a safety standpoint because now people don't know how to behave when coming to a stop.

The problem is not that people don't know how to behave, it's that they've been doing it wrong since the day they passed their driver's test and stopped caring, and now cameras are catching them in the act. I'm all for including a copy of the page in the driver's manual that states what you are SUPPOSED to do in this scenario.

When you get to a red light... stop. It's not a yield sign, it's a red light. Stop, then turn right if it's safe. There is no county in the US where a rolling turn is acceptable, it's

The traffic camera law states that "A notice of violation and a traffic citation may not be issued for failure to stop at a red light if the driver is making a right-hand turn in a careful and prudent manner at an intersection where right-hand turns are permissible.

A notice of violation and a traffic citation may not be issued under this section if the driver of the vehicle came to a comple

Thanks for posting this. And yeah, I live in Florida. Grew up in the suburbs out here, and it is exactly as you describe with the intersections and the law. It may not make sense to people who live in much denser environments.

That is sort of a concern. On the whole, these spikes likely wouldn't show anything out of ordinary is views as a total for a year or quarter or something long range. But because the data is available for shorter periods of time, it was found quickly.

So did the company or the city alter the cams in order to increase revenue and make the camera pay for itself or is there a completely different explanation. Right now, it seems they were altered and not documented then altered back.